Tasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching (TILT)

ELT501Foundations of

UniversityLearning and Teaching

Semester 22013

Unit Outline

Dr Natalie Brown

Dr Sharon Lierse

CRICOS Provider Code: 00586B

Contact Details

Unit Coordinator/Lecturer Dr Natalie BrownCampus HobartE-mail Natalie.Brown@utas.edu.auPhone 03 6226 1756 and 0419 120 334Contact Times Email with 48 hour turnaround during business

hours

Unit Lecturer Dr Sharon LierseCampus HobartE-mail Sharon.Lierse@utas.edu.auPhone 03 6226 1901Contact Times Email with 48 hour turnaround during business

hours

Unit Administration Mrs Emily Cole, Graduate Certificate Administration

Campus: LauncestonE-mail: Emily.Marshall@utas.edu.auPhone: 03 6324 3740Contact Times: Business hours

© The University of Tasmania 2013

Contents

Unit Description 2Intended Learning Outcomes 3Generic Graduate Attributes 3Alterations to this Unit as a Result of Student Feedback 4Prior Knowledge and Skills 4Teaching and learning strategies 4Learning Resources 5For MyLO 5Teaching Arrangements 5Learning Expectations 7Specific Attendance and Performance Requirements 7Recommended Readings 7Assessment 8Assessment Task 1 8Assessment Task 2 9Assessment Task 3 10How Your Final Result is Determined 11Submission of Assignments 11Review of Results and Appeals 12Academic Referencing 12Academic Misconduct 12Workplace Health and Safety 13Further Information and Assistance 13

1

Unit Description

ELT501Foundations of University Learning and Teaching

This unit is designed to provide information and a collegial environment to support you in developing a rich and integrated understanding of university learning and teaching issues, with reference to the UTAS context.

You will explore the theories, principles and practice of university learning and teaching. There is an emphasis on discussing and applying constructive alignment, strategies to promote deep learning and integrating technology into the learning and teaching environment.

This is the foundation unit in the Graduate Certificate of University Learning and Teaching, and consequently introduces a range of topics that will be developed further in other units. It also acts as a primer for new UTAS staff.

Staff: Dr Natalie Brown, Dr Sharon Lierse, Dr Sharon Thomas, Dr Karin Mathison, Mr Gerry Kregor, Ms Kristin Warr, Ms Jo Osborne, Ms Nell Rundle, Mr Ben Cleland and Dr Doug Colbeck.

Unit weight: 12.5%

Teaching pattern: Block teaching (i.e. face-to-face; 3 days + 2 day), MyLO supported.

Required resource:

Biggs, J and Tang C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed). Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

or

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Courses: [E4D]

2

Intended Learning Outcomes

Foundations of University Learning and Teaching fulfils two roles: it is the foundation unit in the Graduate Certificate of University Learning and Teaching, and it also acts as a primer for new UTAS staff. This unit is also included in the B.Ed (Prof.Hons) course.

The unit is designed to provide information and a collegial environment to support you in developing a rich and integrated understanding of university learning and teaching issues, as described in the following intended learning outcomes.

1. Apply theoretical and practical knowledge of best practice in student-centred teaching in higher education, to plan and design curricula.

2. Analyse and evaluate the role of assessment in learning and teaching, and build a repertoire of formative and summative assessment tasks.

3. Present an argument for change that improves teaching and learning within your professional context.

Generic Graduate Attributes

The University has defined a set of generic graduate attributes (GGAs) that can be expected of all graduates. By undertaking this unit you should make progress in attaining the following attributes.

Knowledge will be developed by learning and applying new skills and understandings to your particular teaching and learning contexts. This will be assessed through the application of knowledge in the development of practical teaching resources, the ability to reflect and evaluate on the application of these resources within learning environments and the ability to situate this work within the literature.

Communication skills will be developed by teaching and modelling the oral, written and visual communication skills required in diverse learning contexts. Written skills will be assessed.

Problem-solving skills will be developed by demonstrating, modelling and critiquing critical issues in teaching and learning. Problem solving skills will be assessed through the ability to find solutions to problems in individual workplace learning and teaching contexts.

Social responsibility will be developed through the acknowledgement of social and ethical implications of actions, appreciation of the impact of social change and a practical understanding of inclusive practice principles. Through assessment tasks participants will be expected to demonstrate ethical understanding and professional teaching and assessment practices and conform to the University’s codes of conduct, policies and rules.

3

Alterations to this Unit as a Result of Student Feedback

As a result of student feedback - through formal Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (i.e. eVALUate) surveys, informal end-of-class surveys and discussions with students – the intended learning outcomes have been refined. In particular, the third intended learning outcome has been rewritten to better reflect a major purpose of this unit.

The assessment structure has also been refined. In particular, a group presentation assignment has been replaced by a discussion paper focusing on writing intended learning outcomes (i.e. ILOs) and ensuring constructive alignment. The final assignment has also been modified from a critique of an existing unit to the development of an outline for a unit that you would like to develop. This change in the final assignment is designed to better integrate with the experiences, and the professional positions, of ELT501 students. Weightings for assessment criteria have been added to provide guidance about key criteria to address.

The rubrics for the assessment tasks are now included in the unit outline.

In order to ensure that you have exposure to technologies that are increasingly part of UTAS there is an increased focus on providing opportunities for using environments such as Web Conferencing. The assignment due dates have also been shifted from Fridays to Mondays, in response to student requests.

The time of submission is 2pm to ensure that MyLO support is provided.

Prior Knowledge and Skills

In most cases, you need to have completed a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent. You also need to be committed to self improvement in your teaching and other educational activities, and be willing to engage colleagues in this process. You will need to have access to a Unit Outline, preferably for a unit in which you teach. If you are not teaching into a unit, you may need to request to use an outline written by a colleague.

Teaching and learning strategies

ELT 501 is taught predominantly in face-to-face mode. As such, attendance at sessions is very important. An important aspect of the face-to-face classes is to give you the opportunity to meet, and work with, colleagues from different Schools and Faculties.

There are five face-to-face days (three consecutive days and two follow-up days) with classes running from 10am until 4pm on those days. A schedule of sessions for the first four days will be given out on the first day of the course. The follow up day will be designed to respond to the needs and requests of the class.

In addition to the face-to-face teaching, the course will be supported through a MyLO site. The inclusion of minimal interaction with MyLO is designed to assist you to communicate effectively with the teaching team and each other, and to allow you to gain some hands-on experience with the UTAS Learning Management System.

4

Learning Resources

The textbook is: Biggs, J and Tang C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed). Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

or

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

The face-to-face days will be supported through handouts and resources accessed through MyLO.

As a MyLO supported unit, you will be required to have interactions through MyLO. As a minimum requirement you will need to:

1. Access the MyLO site and introduce yourself to the ELT501 class

2. Maintain a regular surveillance of the MyLO site to pick up any News items

3. Submit your assessment tasks through the MyLO drop box

4. Utilise resource posted on MyLO

For MyLO

To access MyLO from your own computer you will need the appropriate software, and hardware to run that software. Please see UConnect at http://uconnect.utas.edu.au/ for information about computer software you will need.

If you are using your UTAS computer, assistance can be gained through the 1818 number.

Teaching Arrangements

Hobart: Wednesday 26th June, Thursday 27th June, Friday 28th June and follow up days on Thursday 5th September and Friday 6th September.

5

Unit Schedule

Week beginning Topic/Activity Further Information

24th June Hobart: Wednesday 26th – Friday 28th June Face-to-face classes for Hobart Cohort

24th June Access MyLo site for News and/or announcements

12th August

Assignment 1 due Monday 12th AugustSubmit via MyLO drop box

Follow up day - Hobart

19th August Access MyLo site for News and/or announcements

2nd September Hobart: Thursday 5th – Friday 6th September

16th September Assignment 2 due Monday 16th September Submit via MyLO drop box

22nd September Access MyLo site for News and/or announcements

28th October Assessment Task 3 due: Monday 28th October Submit via MyLO drop box

6

Learning Expectations

The University is committed to high standards of professional conduct in all activities, and holds its commitment and responsibilities to its students as being of paramount importance. Likewise, it holds expectations about the responsibilities students have as they pursue their studies within the special environment the University offers.

The University’s Code of Conduct for Teaching and Learning states:

Students are expected to participate actively and positively in the teaching/learning environment. They must attend classes when and as required, strive to maintain steady progress within the subject or unit framework, comply with workload expectations, and submit required work on time.

Specific Attendance and Performance Requirements

Students must attend at least 80% of all face-to-face teaching sessions, and submit all assessment tasks.

Recommended Readings

It is important that you read journal articles throughout the semester. This is particularly important in relation to assignments 1 and 2. In the first block of face-to-face days you will be provided with advice about which journals to focus on. You will also be given a comprehensive data base of learning and teaching articles.

A summary list of journals that may be of interest is provided below. These are all accessible from UTAS e-journals, unless otherwise indicated.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher EducationHigher EducationHigher Education Research and DevelopmentInnovations in Education and Teaching InternationalInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Journal of Further and Higher EducationThe Journal of Higher EducationJournal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) - www.iupui.edu/~josotl/Studies in Higher Education Teaching in Higher Education

Journals with a Technology in Education FocusALT-J: Association for Learning Technology JournalAustralasian Journal of Educational TechnologyBritish Journal of Educational TechnologyJournal of Computer Assisted LearningJournal of Interactive Media in EducationJournal of Interactive Online LearningJournal of Learning DesignJournal of Online Learning and Teaching Technology, Pedagogy and EducationThe Internet and Higher Education

7

Assessment

Assessment Schedule

Assessment Task Date Due Percent Weighting

Links to Learning Outcomes

Revisiting Intended Learning Outcomes

Monday 12th August 20% 1 and 3

Focus on Assessment

Monday 16th September 30% 1, 2 and 3

Writing a Unit Outline

Monday 28th October 50% 1, 2 and 3

Assessment Task 1

Revisiting Intended Learning Outcomes (20%)

Task Description

This assessment is to be completed using a unit outline for an existing UTAS unit, with the preference being a unit that you have some responsibility for teaching.

A critique of the existing intended learning outcomes is required. This involves commenting on the appropriateness of the outcomes and the extent to which they are consistent with UTAS guidelines and best practice as articulated in the teaching and learning literature. The outcomes are then modified to better reflect the unit’s intentions and the guidelines. If you believe no modification is required a strong defence of that position is required.

Task Length 1500 words

Links to Learning Outcomes

1 and 3

Assessment Criteria

The quality of the critique of the existing intended learning outcomes. This includes evidence of you reflecting on: teaching experiences, student feedback, alignment with assessment tasks and the aim of the unit. [weighting 30%]

The extent to which the critique is supported by reference to UTAS guidelines and the teaching and learning literature. [weighting 30%]

The extent to which modified intended learning outcomes are consistent with UTAS guidelines and the teaching and learning literature. [weighting 30%]

The extent to which the assignment is presented in an ‘academic essay/report’ style, with citations and referencing in accordance with

8

the American Psychological Association (APA) style. [weighting 10%]

Date Due Monday 12th August

Assessment Task 2

Focus on Assessment (30%)

Task Description

The purpose of this task is to identify one or two aspects within the existing assessment agenda of a unit that would benefit from change, and to provide suggestions for improvement in order to facilitate more consistent and higher quality student learning outcomes. You also need to consider how the change might be received by stakeholders and why, and how you could minimise obstacles or best facilitate change.

The preference is for the unit to be one that you have some responsibility for teaching and for it to be the same unit considered in Assessment Task 1.

You are expected to explain and justify your plans and suggestions with reference to appropriate University policies, procedures and guidelines, and published scholarly discussions related to assessment of learning in higher education contexts.

Task Length 1500 words

Links to Learning Outcomes

1, 2 and 3

Assessment Criteria

Identification and justification for change to one or two major aspects of the unit assessment. [weighting 20%]

Proposed specific changes to the identified aspects. [weighting 20%]

Discussion of how the changes will be received by stakeholders. [weighting 20%]

Use of appropriate university policies, procedures and guidelines, and teaching and learning literature. [weighting 20%]

The extent to which the assignment is presented in an ‘academic essay/report’ style, with citations and referencing in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA) style. [weighting 20%]

Sources Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Buckingham: Open University

9

Press/McGraw-Hill or 3rd edition – see notes below.University of Tasmania. (2006). Code of conduct for teaching and

learning. Retrieved from www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy

University of Tasmania. (2009). Assessment policy TLP 2.1. Retrieved from www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy

University of Tasmania. (2009). Rule No 2 – Academic assessment (Amended). Retrieved from http://www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/academic-governance/academic-senate/academic-senate-rules

University of Tasmania. (2011). Guidelines for good assessment practice. Retrieved from www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/158674/GAG_v16_webversion.pdf

University of Tasmania. (2012, February 12) Assessment web site. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/assessment

University of Tasmania. (2012, April 23). Teaching and learning home page. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au

James, R., McInnis, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). Core principles of effective assessment. Retrieved from www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/05/index.html (There are a number of links in the online version of this resource that will allow you to pursue particular interests and topics in assessment).

You should also review Chapters 10, 11 and 12 of your text:Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Note that if you are using the 3rd edition,

these are chapters 9, 10 and 11.Learning and teaching journals, including discipline-specific journals.

Date Due Monday 16th September

Assessment Task 3

Writing a Unit Outline (50%)

Task Description

You are expected to submit a unit outline for a unit that is not offered at UTAS. Rather, the outline is to be written for a unit that you believe would be a valuable addition to an existing course (also known as a programme).

In addition to the unit outline you are to submit a completed ‘new unit form’ and a 500 word description of why you believe the unit should be raised.

Note: The unit outline template you use must the one provided by the School/Faculty that the proposed unit would be housed in. If no such template exists use the default UTAS one, available at: www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

10

Task Length 3000 words (not including words already present in the unit outline template and in the new unit form template)

Links to Learning Outcomes

1, 2 and 3

Assessment Criteria

Extent to which knowledge of institutional unit outline requirements and guidelines is demonstrated. [weighting 35%]

Extent to which knowledge of the theories and principles of teaching and learning is demonstrated through the construction of a quality unit outline. [weighting 35%]

The strength of the succinct justification for why the unit should be raised, with reference to the current UTAS environment and higher education trends. [weighting 20%]

The degree to which the new unit form complies with UTAS guidelines, contains a unit description that accurately describes the unit’s aim, markets the unit, and is consistent with the unit outline. [weighting 10%]

Date Due Monday 28th October

(Note: Due to the timing of the examiners’ meeting, extensions for this task will only be granted under exceptional/unforseen circumstances.)

How Your Final Result is Determined

Your final result is determined by summing the marks obtained for all assessment tasks. It is the practice of the Faculty of Education that moderation of marks may occur. It is also the practice of the Faculty that individual pieces of assessment be graded according to the University’s grading system, that is, percentages/marks for individual pieces of assessment are not released.

Submission of Assignments

Completed assessment tasks must be submitted via the MyLO drop box before 2pm on the due date.

Requests for ExtensionsAll requests for extensions should be submitted IN WRITING to Dr Sharon Lierse. (Sharon.Lierse@utas.edu.au) WELL BEFORE the due date of the assignment. This can be either a letter sent to the TILT office or an email. Phone messages and notes placed under Dr Sharon Lierse’s door will not be accepted. Generally, foreseeable work commitments will not be grounds for an extension.

A request for an extension does not guarantee that the request will be granted.

11

PenaltiesStudents may submit assignments before the due date (via the means specified by the unit coordinator). A penalty will be applied for submission after the due date unless a formal extension has been granted, in writing. As copies of assignments are to be submitted electronically, submission on weekends is possible. Weekend days, therefore, will attract the same penalties as weekdays.

The following late penalties apply. Ten-percent (10%) of the maximum mark available for the assignment for

each day late (including weekend days and public holidays) up until five days late.

No acceptance of any assignment submitted more than five days after the due date (with a zero grade awarded for the item).

Word limits have been set for every paper-based assessment task. Submissions that exceed, or are below the word limit by more than 10% may incur a penalty of 10% of the awarded mark for each 10% over or under the word limit. The word limit excludes references.

Review of Results and Appeals

Appeals should go to the coordinator - Dr Natalie Brown- in the first instance. If unresolved, appeals are referred to the Course Coordinator – Dr Sharon Thomas – and then, if necessary, to the Faculty Executive (Education).

Academic Referencing

In your written work you will need to support your ideas by referring to scholarly literature, works of art and/or inventions. It is important that you understand how to correctly refer to the work of others, including colleagues and students, and maintain academic integrity.

Failure to appropriately acknowledge the ideas of others constitutes academic dishonesty (plagiarism), a matter considered by the University of Tasmania as a serious offence.

All students are to adopt the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style as this style is the one most commonly adopted in SoTL journals.

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Web site: owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10

Please read the following statement on academic misconduct. Should you require clarification please see a unit coordinator or lecturer.

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct includes cheating, plagiarism, allowing another student to copy work for an assignment or an examination and any other conduct by which a student:

12

(a) seeks to gain, for themselves or for any other person, any academic advantage or advancement to which they or that other person are not entitled; or (b) improperly disadvantages any other student.

Students engaging in any form of academic misconduct may be dealt with under the Ordinance of Student Discipline, and this can include imposition of penalties that range from a deduction/cancellation of marks to exclusion from a unit or the University. Details of penalties that can be imposed are available in Ordinance 9: Student Discipline – Part 3 Academic Misconduct, see http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/23991/ord91.pdf .

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a form of cheating. It is taking and using someone else's thoughts, writings or inventions and representing them as your own; for example, using an author's words without putting them in quotation marks and citing the source, using an author's ideas without proper acknowledgment and citation, copying another student's work. If you have any doubts about how to refer to the work of others in your assignments, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines, and the academic integrity resources on the web at www.academicintegrity.utas.edu.au

The intentional copying of someone else’s work as one’s own is a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from a fine or deduction/cancellation of marks and, in the most serious of cases, to exclusion from a unit, a course or the University.

The University and any persons authorised by the University may submit your assessable works to a plagiarism checking service, to obtain a report on possible instances of plagiarism. Assessable works may also be included in a reference database. It is a condition of this arrangement that the original author’s permission is required before a work within the database can be viewed.

For further information on this statement and general referencing guidelines, see www.students.utas.edu.au/plagiarism or follow the link under ‘Policy, Procedures and Feedback’ on the Current Students homepage.

Workplace Health and Safety

The University is committed to providing a safe and secure teaching and learning environment. In addition to specific requirements of this unit you should refer to the University’s policy at: www.human-resources.utas.edu.au/health-and-safety.

Further Information and Assistance

If you are experiencing difficulties with your studies or assignments, have personal or life planning issues, disability or illness which may affect your course of study, you are advised to raise these with your teacher in the first instance.

13

Generally, foreseeable work commitments will not be grounds for an extension. If you anticipate that work commitments, such as teaching offshore, may impact on your ability to satisfy the requirements of the course, you are advised to notify the unit coordinator and negotiate alternative arrangements.

There is a range of University-wide support services available to you including Teaching & Learning (TILT), Student Centre (Support) and International Services. Please refer to the Current Students homepage at: www.utas.edu.au/students

Should you require assistance in accessing the Library visit their web site for more information at www.utas.edu.au/library.

14

ELT501 Assessment Task 1, Semester 2, 2013: Revisiting Intended Learning Outcomes

Criteria High Distinction (HD) Distinction (DN) Credit (CR) Pass (PP) Fail (NN)The quality of the critique of the existing intended learning outcomes. This includes evidence of you reflecting on: teaching experiences, student feedback, alignment with assessment tasks and the aim of the unit.

weighting 30%

The existing unit intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are critiqued (i.e. parsed) with detailed reference to all of the following six points:

- the extent to which they describe the syllabus that is taught;

- the extent to which they describe the syllabus that is summarised in the Course and Unit Handbook ‘description’ section (that could be different to the syllabus actually taught);

- your teaching experiences and reflections;

- your perspective as a discipline expert;

- student feedback, anecdotal and through planned evaluations, such as SETLs; and

- the principles of constructive alignment, including alignment between assessment tasks and ILOs.

The existing unit ILOs are critiqued (i.e. parsed) with detailed reference to most of the six points mentioned in the HD category for this criterion.

Whilst most of the six points mentioned in the HD category for this criterion are considered, some of the discussion is at a surface level and relationships between the critique and the evidence being cited are at times not clear, tenuous, or both.

Only a few of the six points mentioned in the HD criterion are considered in sufficient detail.

There is a lack of evidence that existing ILOs have been critiqued at a considered (i.e. deep) level.

There is minimal evidence that the principles of constructive alignment have informed the critique.

The extent to which the critique is supported by reference to UTAS guidelines and the teaching and learning literature.

weighting 30%

The critique of existing ILOs is consistent with, and extensively refers to, all of the following five points:

- discussions and handouts distributed during the ELT501 face-to-face days;

- the UTAS publication: Guidelines for Good Assessment Practice;

- relevant parts of Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.(or earlier editions of the book);

- general teaching and learning literature; and

- literature specifically located in your discipline that addresses teaching and learning issues.

The critique of existing ILOs is consistent with, and refers extensively to, most of the five points mentioned in the HD category for this criterion.

The critique integrates good consideration of ELT501 face-to-face session handouts, UTAS publications and Biggs and Tang (2011).

However, there is insufficient integration of the general and discipline-related teaching and learning literature.

Only a few of the five points mentioned in the HD criterion are considered in sufficient detail.

There is minimal evidence of consideration of the general and discipline-related teaching and learning literature.

There is only surface level consideration given to the five points mentioned in the HD category for this criterion.

1

The extent to which modified intended learning outcomes are consistent with UTAS guidelines and the teaching and learning literature.

weighting 30%

A list of modified ILOs are provided.

The rationale underlying each modified ILO is explained with extensive reference to the following four points:

- the current unit description or a recommended modified unit description;

- the principles of constructive alignment, including alignment between assessment tasks and ILOs;

- UTAS guidelines; and

- the general and discipline-related teaching and learning literature.

A list of modified ILOs are provided.

The rationale underlying each modified ILO is explained with extensive reference to most of the four points mentioned in the HD category for this criterion.

A list of modified ILOs are provided.

Whilst most of the four points mentioned in the HD category for this criterion are considered, some of the discussion is at a surface level and relationships between the modified ILOs and the UTAS guidelines and teaching and learning literature is at times not clear, tenuous, or both.

A list of modified ILOs are provided.

Only a few of the four points mentioned in the HD criterion are considered in sufficient detail with respect to modified ILOs.

A list of modified ILOs are provided.

There is a lack of evidence that modified ILOs are consistent with UTAS guidelines and the literature.

The extent to which the assignment is presented in an ‘academic essay/report’ style, with citations and referencing in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA) style.

weighting 10%

The paper is written in a flowing manner, rather than a stop-start-stop style. This is evident from a structure that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If headings are used they enhance the flow.

The reader is provided with sufficient information to understand the context of the unit at UTAS and the role(s) that the writer plays in the delivery of the unit.

The UTAS publications and other cited literature are well integrated into the paper, such that it flows.

Citations and the reference list are fully compliant with the APA style as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline.

The paper is written in a flowing manner. This is evident from a structure that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If headings are used they enhance the flow.

The reader is provided with sufficient information to understand the context of the unit at UTAS and the role(s) that the writer plays in the delivery of the unit.

The UTAS publications and other cited literature are well integrated into the paper, such that the paper flows.

Citations and the reference list are mostly compliant with the APA style as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline.

The paper is written in a flowing manner. This is evident from a structure that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If headings are used they enhance the flow.

In most cases UTAS publications and other cited literature are well integrated into the paper.

Whilst the style of the citations and the reference list are based on the APA style, as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline, there are many deviations.

The paper lacks a consistent flow (i.e. story line). At times paragraphs appear unrelated to those surrounding them.

UTAS publications and other cited literature included in the paper could be better integrated.

Whilst the style of the citations and the reference list are based on the APA style, as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline, there are too many deviations.

The paper lacks flow and hence is challenging to read and make sense of.

Significant work is required to make the citations and reference list consistent with the APA style, as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline, there are too many deviations.

2

ELT501 Assessment Task 2, Semester 2, 2013: Focus on Assessment

Criterion High Distinction (HD) Distinction (DN) Credit (CR) Pass (PP) Fail (NN)Identification and justification for change to one or two major aspects of the unit assessment.

weighting 20%

At most two assessment tasks are identified. These components are of a specific and focused nature.

Evidence of critical reflection is provided through a succinct explanation of why the components need to be changed. This explanation includes a description of evidence supporting the need for change.

At most two assessment tasks are identified. These components are of a specific and focused nature.

Evidence of critical reflection is provided through an explanation of why the components need to be changed.

At most two assessment aspects are identified. However, the aspects are macro in nature rather than being specific.

Evidence of critical reflection is provided through an explanation of why the components need to be changed.

Identification of assessment aspects is unfocused and unclear.

There is some evidence of critical reflection through a general explanation of why the components need to be changed.

There is minimal evidence of considered thought about changing or refining the assessment in a unit.

Any consideration is too broad to enable aspects to be identified.

Proposed specific changes to the identified aspects.

weighting 20%

It is clearly evident how the proposed changes relate to the aspects identified as needing improvement or replacement.

The details of the changes are specific and focused.

It is clearly evident that consideration has been given to how the changes align with the current or revised learning outcomes (from assignment 1).

The changes are realistic in terms of student and staff workloads.

It is clearly evident how the proposed changes relate to the aspects identified as needing improvement or replacement.

The details of the changes are specific and focused.

It is evident that consideration has been given to how the changes align with the current or revised learning outcomes (from assignment 1).

The changes are mostly realistic in terms of student and staff workloads.

It is evident how the proposed changes relate to the aspects identified as needing improvement or replacement.

The majority of the details of the changes are specific and focused.

It is not clear how the changes align with the current or revised learning outcomes (from assignment 1).

The changes are realistic in terms of student workload, or staff workload, but not both.

It is evident how the proposed changes relate to the aspects identified as needing improvement or replacement.

Some of the details of the changes are specific and focused.

It is not clear how the changes align with the current or revised learning outcomes (from assignment 1).

The changes are not realistic in terms of student workload and staff workload.

There is minimal evidence of considered thought about proposed specific changes and how these relate to aspects of assessment that can be improved.

3

Criterion High Distinction (HD) Distinction (DN) Credit (CR) Pass (PP) Fail (NN)Discussion of how the changes will be received by stakeholders.

weighting 20%

There is a description of how the proposed changes will be received by stakeholders, including but not limited to: teaching staff, unit coordinators and students.

For each stakeholder group: If there are potential challenges identified, these are explained and realistic strategies for minimising them are described. The extent to which successful strategy implementation involves stakeholders other than the writer is clearly articulated.

For each stakeholder group: If it is felt that the changes will be well received, reasons for this are described and supported by evidence.

There is a description of how the proposed changes will be received by stakeholders, including but not limited to: teaching staff, unit coordinators and students.

For some of the stakeholder groups: If there are potential challenges identified, these are explained and realistic strategies for minimising them are described. The extent to which successful strategy implementation involves stakeholders other than the writer is clearly articulated.

For some of the stakeholder groups: If it is felt that the changes will be well received, reasons for this are described and supported by evidence.

There is some description of how the proposed changes will be received by stakeholders. However, not all relevant stakeholder groups are considered.

For some of the identified stakeholder groups: If there are potential challenges identified, these are explained and realistic strategies for minimising them are described.

For some of the identified stakeholder groups: If it is felt that the changes will be well received, reasons for this are described.

Whilst there is a description of how the proposed changes will be received by some stakeholders, the description lacks depth.

There is insufficient detail about potential challenges and strategies to address these, or about reasons the changes will be well received.

There is minimal consideration of how the changes will be received by stakeholders.

Use of appropriate university policies, procedures and guidelines, and teaching and learning literature.

weighting 20%

There is extensive evidence that the paper has been written in light of consideration of the UTAS Guidelines for Good Assessment PracticeGuidelines.

It is clearly explained how the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 2 -Academic Assessment and the Assessment Policy.

Assessment-related journal articles and books, including some strongly related to the discipline in which the unit under discussion is situated, are cited and have extensively influenced the paper. They include articles other than those provided in the ELT501 materials.

There is extensive evidence that the paper has been written in light of consideration of the UTAS Guidelines for Good Assessment PracticeGuidelines.

It is clearly explained how the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 2 -Academic Assessment and the Assessment Policy.

Assessment-related journal articles and books are cited and have clearly influenced the paper, including articles other than those provided in the ELT501 materials.

There is some evidence that the paper has been written in light of consideration of the UTAS Guidelines for Good Assessment PracticeGuidelines.

There is an explanation of how the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 2 -Academic Assessment and the Assessment Policy.

Assessment-related journal articles and books, other than those provided in the ELT501 materials, are cited and integrated. However, it is not clear how they support the recommended changes.

There is some evidence that the paper has been written in light of consideration of the UTAS Guidelines for Good Assessment PracticeGuidelines.

There is minimal explanation of how the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 2 - Academic Assessment and the Assessment Policy

Whilst assessment-related journal articles and books are cited, the extent of integration is minimal.

There is minimal evidence that the paper has been written in light of consideration of the UTAS Guidelines for Good Assessment PracticeGuidelines, Rule 2 - Academic Assessment and the Assessment Policy

There is minimal integration of other authors’ viewpoints – as expressed in journal articles and books – in the paper.

4

The extent to which the assignment is presented in an ‘academic essay/report’ style, with citations and referencing in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA) style.

weighting 20%

The paper is written in a flowing manner, rather than a stop-start-stop style. This is evident from a structure that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If headings are used they enhance the flow.

The reader is provided with sufficient information to understand the context of the unit at UTAS and the role(s) that the writer plays in the delivery of the unit.

The UTAS publications and other cited literature are well integrated into the paper, such that it flows.

Citations and the reference list are fully compliant with the APA style as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline.

The paper is written in a flowing manner. This is evident from a structure that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If headings are used they enhance the flow.

The reader is provided with sufficient information to understand the context of the unit at UTAS and the role(s) that the writer plays in the delivery of the unit.

The UTAS publications and other cited literature are well integrated into the paper, such that the paper flows.

Citations and the reference list are mostly compliant with the APA style as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline.

The paper is written in a flowing manner. This is evident from a structure that includes an introduction, body and conclusion. If headings are used they enhance the flow.

In most cases UTAS publications and other cited literature are well integrated into the paper.

Whilst the style of the citations and the reference list are based on the APA style, as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline, there are many deviations.

The paper lacks a consistent flow (i.e. story line). At times paragraphs appear unrelated to those surrounding them.

UTAS publications and other cited literature included in the paper could be better integrated.

Whilst the style of the citations and the reference list are based on the APA style, as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline, there are too many deviations.

The paper lacks flow and hence is challenging to read and make sense of.

Significant work is required to make the citations and reference list consistent with the APA style, as articulated on the ‘OWL’ web site listed in the ELT501 Unit Outline, there are too many deviations.

5

ELT501 Assessment Task 3, Semester 2, 2013: Writing a Unit Outline (Weighting 50%)Task Description

You are expected to submit a unit outline for a unit that is not offered at UTAS. Rather, the outline is to be written for a unit that you believe would be a valuable addition to an existing course (also known as a programme).

In addition to the unit outline you are to submit a completed ‘new unit form’ and a 500 word description of why you believe the unit should be raised.

Note: The unit outline template you use must the one provided by the School/Faculty that the proposed unit would be housed in. If no such template exists use the default UTAS one, available at: www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

Task Length

3000 words (Not including words already provided in the unit outline and new unit form templates.)

Criterion High Distinction (HD) Distinction (DN) Credit (CR) Pass (PP) Fail (NN)Extent to which knowledge of institutional unit outline requirements and guidelines is demonstrated.

weighting 35%

The unit outline is fully compliant with the requirements of a unit outline, as described in the following three points:- the template available at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines , with regards to essential (i.e. mandated) features;- the Code of Conduct in Teaching and Learning ( www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy/alphabetical ); and- your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.The content of the unit outline is clearly based on consideration of guidelines, as articulated at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

Where applicable, annotations are made on the unit outline indicating when elements (i.e. parts) of the unit outline are included in order to

The unit outline is predominately compliant with the requirements of a unit outline, as described in the following three points:- the template available at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines , with regards to essential (i.e. mandated) features;- the Code of Conduct in Teaching and Learning ( www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy/alphabetical ); and- your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.The content of the unit outline is clearly based on consideration of guidelines, as articulated at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

Where applicable, annotations are made on the unit outline indicating when elements (i.e. parts) of the unit outline are included in order to

The unit outline is predominately compliant with the requirements of a unit outline, as described in the following two points:- the Code of Conduct in Teaching and Learning ( www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy/alphabetical ); and- your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.The unit outline does not contain all of the essential (i.e. mandated) features as indicated in the template at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlinesThe content of the unit outline is based on some consideration of guidelines, as articulated at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

Where applicable, annotations are made on the unit outline indicating

The unit outline is mostly compliant with the requirements of a unit outline, as described in the following two points:- the Code of Conduct in Teaching and Learning ( www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy/alphabetical ); and- your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.Many essential (i.e. mandated) features as indicated in the template at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines are missing from the unit outline.There is minimal evidence that the unit outline is based on consideration of guidelines, as articulated at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

Not all necessary annotations are made on the unit outline indicating

The unit outline is not compliant with many of the requirements of a unit outline, as described in the following three points:- the template available at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines , with regards to essential (i.e. mandated) features;- the Code of Conduct in Teaching and Learning ( www.utas.edu.au/governance-legal/policy/alphabetical ); and- your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.There is minimal evidence that the unit outline is based on consideration of guidelines, as articulated at www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/planning/unit-outlines

6

comply with UTAS mandated features that are NOT currently part of your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.

comply with UTAS mandated features that are NOT currently part of your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.

when elements (i.e. parts) of the unit outline are included in order to comply with UTAS mandated features that are NOT currently part of your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.

when elements (i.e. parts) of the unit outline are included in order to comply with UTAS mandated features that are NOT currently part of your Faculty’s unit outline template, if one exists.

Extent to which knowledge of the theories and principles of teaching and learning is demonstrated through the construction of a quality unit outline.

weighting 35%

The intended learning outcomes (i.e. ILOs) are exemplars of good practice with respect to the number of outcomes and their phrasing.The description of the assessment tasks is an exemplar of good assessment practice, and contains for each task a task title, a task description, a task length, links to ILOs, assessment criteria and the due date.The unit outline is an exemplar of the application of constructive alignment principles, with respect to the intended learning outcomes and the assessment tasks.The unit outline is written and designed to a standard that is clearly consistent with the principles and theories of teaching and learning as articulated in the following three points:- the UTAS publication: Guidelines for Good Assessment Practice;- discussions and handouts distributed during the ELT501 face-to-face days; and- the Biggs and Tang (2007) publication: Teaching for Quality Learning at University.

Note: There is no expectation that the unit outline includes annotations to the sources of best practice that you have based your unit outline on. That is, there is no expectation of explicitly citing the

The majority of the ILOs are exemplars of good practice with respect to the number of outcomes and their phrasing.The description of the assessment tasks is an exemplar of good assessment practice, and contains for each task a task title, a task description, a task length, links to ILOs, assessment criteria and the due date.There is a high degree of alignment between the ILOs and the assessment tasks.The unit outline is written and designed to a standard that is mostly consistent with the principles and theories of teaching and learning as articulated in the following three points:- the UTAS publication: Guidelines for Good Assessment Practice;- discussions and handouts distributed during the ELT501 face-to-face days; and- the Biggs and Tang (2007) publication: Teaching for Quality Learning at University.

Note: There is no expectation that the unit outline includes annotations to the sources of best practice that you have based your unit outline on. That is, there is no expectation of explicitly citing the literature that has guided your writing of the outline.

The majority of the ILOs are exemplars of good practice with respect to the number of outcomes and their phrasing.Most of the assessment tasks are described in sufficient detail through the provision for each task of most of the following elements: A task title, a task description, a task length, links to ILOs, assessment criteria and the due date.Alignment between most of the ILOs and the assessment tasks is evident.The unit outline is written and designed to a standard that is generally consistent with the principles and theories of teaching and learning as articulated in the following three points:- the UTAS publication: Guidelines for Good Assessment Practice;- discussions and handouts distributed during the ELT501 face-to-face days; and- the Biggs and Tang (2007) publication: Teaching for Quality Learning at University.

Note: There is no expectation that the unit outline includes annotations to the sources of best practice that you have based your unit outline on. That is, there is no expectation of explicitly citing the literature that has guided your

The majority of the ILOs are exemplars of good practice with respect to the number of outcomes and their phrasing.The description of the assessment tasks is lacking, with many of the following elements missing for each task: A task title, a task description, a task length, links to ILOs, assessment criteria and the due date.Alignment between most of the ILOs and the assessment tasks is difficult to ascertain due to a combination of insufficient assessment task descriptions and inadequately constructed ILOs.The unit outline is written and designed to a standard that is loosely consistent with the principles and theories of teaching and learning as articulated in the following three points:- the UTAS publication: Guidelines for Good Assessment Practice;- discussions and handouts distributed during the ELT501 face-to-face days; and- the Biggs and Tang (2007) publication: Teaching for Quality Learning at University.

Note: There is no expectation that the unit outline includes annotations to the sources of best practice that you have based your unit outline on. That is, there is no

Many of the ILOs lack a structure, including phrasing, consistent with quality outcomes written in accordance with guidelines presented in ELT501.The description of the assessment tasks is lacking, with many of the following elements missing for each task: A task title, a task description, a task length, links to ILOs, assessment criteria and the due date.Alignment between most of the ILOs and the assessment tasks cannot be determined due to a combination of insufficient assessment task descriptions and inadequately constructed ILOs.Note: There is no expectation that the unit outline includes annotations to the sources of best practice that you have based your unit outline on. That is, there is no expectation of explicitly citing the literature that has guided your writing of the outline. Consequently there is no expectation of a reference list associated with this criterion.

7

literature that has guided your writing of the outline. Consequently there is no expectation of a reference list associated with this criterion.

Consequently there is no expectation of a reference list associated with this criterion.

writing of the outline. Consequently there is no expectation of a reference list associated with this criterion.

expectation of explicitly citing the literature that has guided your writing of the outline. Consequently there is no expectation of a reference list associated with this criterion.

The strength of the succinct justification for why the unit should be raised, with reference to the current UTAS environment and higher education trends.

weighting 20%

The justification is succinct and is clearly related to the unit described on the new unit form and the unit outline.

The explanation of why the unit should be raised (i.e. why UTAS should have such a unit) explains the gaps in a current course(s) that the new unit is designed to at least partially full.

The justification draws on all of the following: Your perspective as an expert in your field, your perspective as a teacher, your awareness of trends in the Australian Higher Education sector, and the needs of employers of UTAS alumni.

The justification is succinct and is clearly related to the unit described on the new unit form and the unit outline.

The explanation of why the unit should be raised (i.e. why UTAS should have such a unit) explains the gaps in a current course(s) that the new unit is designed to at least partially full.

The justification draws on the majority of the following: Your perspective as an expert in your field, your perspective as a teacher, your awareness of trends in the Australian Higher Education sector, and the needs of employers of UTAS alumni.

The justification clearly relates to the unit described on the new unit form and the unit outline.

The explanation of why the unit should be raised (i.e. why UTAS should have such a unit) explains the gaps in a current course(s) that the new unit is designed to at least partially full.

The justification draws on at most two of the following: Your perspective as an expert in your field, your perspective as a teacher, your awareness of trends in the Australian Higher Education sector, and the needs of employers of UTAS alumni.

The justification relates to the unit described on the new unit form and the unit outline.

The explanation of why the unit should be raised (i.e. why UTAS should have such a unit) lacks sufficient explanation of the gaps in a current course(s) that the new unit is designed to at least partially full.

The justification draws on at most one of the following: Your perspective as an expert in your field, your perspective as a teacher, your awareness of trends in the Australian Higher Education sector, and the needs of employers of UTAS alumni.

The explanation of why the unit should be raised (i.e. why UTAS should have such a unit) is of a minimal nature and lacks an argument that justifies why the University should consider raising the unit.

The degree to which the new unit form complies with UTAS guidelines, contains a unit description that accurately describes the unit’s aim, markets the unit, and is consistent with the unit outline.

weighting 10%

The new unit form is fully completed, with the exception of the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’, ‘default group for BA and BSc’, ‘Will any units be deleted as a result of introducing this unit?’, ‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’, ‘Schedule details if any’, the ‘authorisation details’ and all boxes below the authorisation details. That is, the details listed in the previous sentence are NOT required. All else is required.

The ‘handbook entry – unit description’ is consistent with the contents of the unit outline and is written in a manner consistent with its use as a marketing tool, on the

The new unit form is almost fully completed, with the exception of the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’, ‘default group for BA and BSc’, ‘Will any units be deleted as a result of introducing this unit?’, ‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’, ‘Schedule details if any’, the ‘authorisation details’ and all boxes below the authorisation details. That is, the details listed in the previous sentence are NOT required. All else is required.

The ‘handbook entry – unit description’ is consistent with the contents of the unit outline. However, it is not written in a manner consistent with attracting

The new unit form is mostly completed, with the exception of the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’, ‘default group for BA and BSc’, ‘Will any units be deleted as a result of introducing this unit?’, ‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’, ‘Schedule details if any’, the ‘authorisation details’ and all boxes below the authorisation details. That is, the details listed in the previous sentence are NOT required. All else is required.

The ‘handbook entry – unit description’ is consistent with the contents of the unit outline. However, it is not written in a manner consistent with attracting

The new unit form is mostly completed, with the exception of the ‘unit code’, ‘field of education’, ‘default group for BA and BSc’, ‘Will any units be deleted as a result of introducing this unit?’, ‘Requisite details’, ‘teaching staff’, ‘Schedule details if any’, the ‘authorisation details’ and all boxes below the authorisation details. That is, the details listed in the previous sentence are NOT required. All else is required.

The ‘handbook entry – unit description’ is consistent with the contents of the unit outline. However, it is not written in a manner consistent with attracting

The new unit form is incomplete, with many of the required parts not filled in.

The ‘handbook entry – unit description’ is inconsistent with the contents of the unit outline.

There are many differences between the required fields on the new unit form and the contents of the unit outline.

8

basis that many students refer to such descriptions – available on the Course and Unit Database (i.e. CUD) - when deciding what units to study.

All required fields on the new unit form are consistent with the contents of the unit outline.

All required fields are completed in compliance with the ‘explanatory notes’ provided at the end of the new unit form and on the Flexible Delivery Definitions - Staff document.

its primary audience – students – to enrol in the unit.

All required fields on the new unit form are consistent with the contents of the unit outline.

All required fields are completed in compliance with the ‘explanatory notes’ provided at the end of the new unit form and on the Flexible Delivery Definitions - Staff document.

its primary audience – students – to enrol in the unit.

The majority of the required fields on the new unit form are consistent with the contents of the unit outline.

All required fields are completed in compliance with the ‘explanatory notes’ provided at the end of the new unit form and on the Flexible Delivery Definitions - Staff document.

its primary audience – students – to enrol in the unit.

There are many differences between the required fields on the new unit form and the contents of the unit outline.

Most required fields are completed in compliance with the ‘explanatory notes’ provided at the end of the new unit form and on the Flexible Delivery Definitions - Staff document.

9